I am retired both from full-time work and from tournament bridge. My main bridge interest is researching the history of the tournament game in England: the first (and possibly only) instalment, covering the period up to the end of WW2, was published on the EBU website in December 2016.

My first serious bridge partner was Richard Granville and he suggested that I sign up to this site.

In summary of points made by others in relation to Wroclaw (and in no particular order):

The arrangements for players to check their scores in the Pairs events were, to say the least, unsatisfactory.

There were scoring errors in three of the four main finals and in two cases these affected the destination of the Gold Medal.

The complex regulations relating to the events were not enforced uniformly.

The handling of the Spanish complaint in relation to Bathurst-Lall was at best inadequate; if what the Spanish team has said is true, it was grossly negligent.

It costs players and NBOs significant amounts of money to take part in World Championship events. The least that can be expected is a minimum standard of competence and efficiency. In 1933, Ely Culbertson allegedly commented that the organisation of that year's European Championship (the first one ever under the aegis of an official body, the International Bridge League) "had been delegated to a clergyman's wife with a wide experience of running whist drives in the parish hall" (per Rex Mackey in The Walk of the Oysters). One would have assumed that, with the passage of over 80 years, the bodies responsible would at least be able to read their own regulations and score straightforward pairs events accurately.

The only tenable conclusion is that, as matters stand, the WBF is not fit for purpose. It needs root and branch reform or, possibly, replacement with an entirely new body.

This contains content that a reasonable person would consider offensive, abusive, or hate speech.

Spam

This is effectively an advertisement with no disclosure. It is not useful or relevant to the current conversation.

Other (additional description required)

This requires general moderator attention based on the Community Guidelines, Terms of Service, or for another reason not listed above.

Select a reason and click "Flag Post" to flag this for review. You may provide an optional (required if choosing other) description of why you find this objectionable. You may also wish to send a private message to to request him or her to edit or remove the .